Boris Derzhavets wrote: > Maciej, > As of November 2007 RH had made a decision stop forward porting > Xen (2.6.18) to 2.6.24 (and higher) kernels and work on so called > pv_ops. At mean time F9 has it implemented only for 32-bit DomUs. > pv_ops implementation for Dom0 is scheduled for F10 (2.6.25) > In my very personal opinion, RHEL 5.1 as well as F8 provides > Enterprise Class Xen Virtualization solutions right now. > You can go another way and purchase XenServer from Citrix directly. > If you want to be safe you have to make a deal with Leading Xen vendors. > If your primery concern is FreeBSD HVM DomUs i would look for > decision from Citrix directly. I am also aware about one shop running > FreeBSD HVM DomUs (32 and 64-bit) at Ubuntu 8.04 Dom0 (64-bit). > on AMD boxes . > I don't have any idea, what kind of patching has been done for this > particular "Super Ubuntu 8 Phenomen". Just remind your own experience > with Ubuntu 8.04. > I also point your attention to the fact , that Xen 3.2.1 broke > backward compatibility with Xen 3.1.2. However , Xen 3.1 doesn't allow > FreeBSD > to run in HVM Domain. Xen 3.2 allows to disable VMXASSIST and > in Xen 3.3 VMXASSIST will be disabled by default. > Have a nice time. > -b. > > > --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Maciej Jan Broniarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Maciej Jan Broniarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [xen-discuss] Disabling VMXASSIST in Xen 3.2.1 tested OK. > > To: "Boris Derzhavets" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 7:22 AM > > 2008/4/30 Boris Derzhavets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > HVM FreeBSD 7.0 (i386) DomU installed at Xen 3.2.1 > > CentOS 5.1 Dom0 (64-bit) > > > with no problems. Singe DVD ISO for FreeBSD 7.0 has > > been used for install. > > > SSH conections from DomU to Dom0 and vice verca have > > been tested OK. > > > I'll atach a couple of screenshots shortly. > > > Disabling VMXASSIST in Xen 3.2.1 has been tested for > > :- > > > 1. Solaris 08/07 HVM DomU (32-bit) > > > 2. FreeBSD 7.0 HVM DomU (32-bit) > > > However, i was not able to create 64-bit DomUs in > > both case. > > > > > > > You suggest using xen built from source. Are there any > > problems during > > an upgrade. I need to deploy a rather productional > > enviroment. I > > wonder, is it possible, that some serious problems will > > occur while > > upgrading to a next xen release. > > > > gausus > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > > > _______________________________________________ > > > xen-discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > [ -----< Maciej Jan Broniarz || [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >------ ] > > | Siamo qui \ sotto la stessa luce \ sotto la sua > > croce \ | > > | cantando ad una voce \ E l'Emmanuel Emmanuel, > > Emmanuel, | > > [ ---------------< E l'Emmanuel, Emmanuel > > >-------------- ] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try > it now. > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > [email protected] Thanks Boris. Quite annoying if you ask me. As much as I like Xen configuration wise (Extensibility and such) maybe this is why I just stick with VMware Server and equivalents. (Open)Solaris doesn't have the luxury, and I'd rather see clients use Solaris to host their business, but if one of the needs is being able to run non-host OS' in virtualization without using outdated Brand-Z guests, then so be it. :-(
James _______________________________________________ xen-discuss mailing list [email protected]
